Aren't there any 200-250mm f2.8 fixed focal length lens in the minolta mount? In the film days ('70s) I had a 180mm f2.8Miranda. A fixed focal length might be both cheaper and allow a little higher shutter speed due to better light transmission. I never had Minoltas so I have no history on what was available in that mount.

Sony has the G series 300mm f/2.8 for $6,000 and the G-Series 70-200 f/2.8 for $2,400.

Olympus has a few large aperature telephotos and telephoto zooms (plus the advantage of the 2x crop factor.)

Pentax relies entirely on third parties for this kind of product.

And Sigma and Tamron have a few large aperature telephotos and telephoto zooms available for most mounts.

But this is where the Canon and Nikon users have it all over the rest of us.

If not a used Minolta 70-210 f/4 "Beercan", the Canon 70-200 f/4 for less that $600 seems to be a good option, along with the the Olympus Zuiko 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 for a little over $700, and the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for about $800.

Only then do we get to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO for about $900 that us Sony and Pentax users share with everyone else. (But we have image stabilization in the body. So there!)

There are always the super zooms to consider to reduce the expense. Perhaps a Fuji S-6000 which has excellent low light/high ISO capabilities. It is selling on the internet in the USA for around $(US) 300.00.

There are always the super zooms to consider to reduce the expense. Perhaps a Fuji S-6000 which has excellent low light/high ISO capabilities. It is selling on the internet in the USA for around $(US) 300.00.

Yeah, but it's still f/4.9 at the long end. Better than the 18-250 f/3.5-6.3, but not by much (~2/3 f-stop).

I think I'm coming around to the conclusion that, for night little league games, the best choice for the OP is the Zuiko 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 and one of the Oly dSLR bodies. (lens plus E-500, $1150 total at B&amp;H)

Except possibly the Alpha-Beercan combination you mentioned a while ago.

At the end of the day however, I still think that the Fuji S-6000 solution is much less expensive solution, and it provides the OP with a very usable everyday camera.

Agreed. But the OP already has a Sony P&amp;S that, since he or she has expressed some brand loyalty,he or she already considers to be a useable camera. He or she was looking for something that would allow him or her to take pictures of his or her sons playing baseball.

So do you think the Fuji would be the way to go for me? I own a Sony but that doesn't mean that I have to stick with them. I would just like to start being able to take some better pictures of my kids. I just feel that I am so limited with my P&amp;S. I can never get close enough and if there are ever any lighting issues it just seems that it takes forever for the camera to take the picture. I feel like I want to have some better options when it comes to taking good quality pictures of them. I wish I knew more about taking pictures.

Thanks to everyone who has been helping me on this subject. I am open to any brand if you think it will get me where I need to be.

In as much as you like Sony, why not take a look at the H-5 ultrazoom It is not quite as able as the Fuji S-6000 at high ISO settings, but it does have IS. It is capable of good ISO 400 photoos. Stay away from the new H-9, it seems to have too many problems with the noise reduction firmware.

My objection to the Fuji is the f/4.9 maximum aperture of the lens at full zoom. That would require a higher ISO setting (more noise) or a slower shutter speed (more motion blur) for your photos of night games.

The Sony H5 that Sarah mentioned has a maximum aperture of f/3.7 at full zoom, so you should be able to get much better action shots in lower lightwith it than with the Fuji.

Going with a dSLR would require a much larger investment in both money and effort, and the results wouldn't necessarily be very much better (for your stated purpose).

Some other considerations are shutter lag, and continuous or burst mode shooting. These are two areas where dSLRs shine.

One of the ways that you can be sure to catch the action is to shoot in burst mode, by holding down the shutter release and letting the camera continue to take pictures until you release it. The typical dSLR can capture at least 2-3 frames per second until the flash memory card is full. But the Sony H5 can only capture about 5 high quality frames at about one frame per second.

Also, capturing a significant instant means being "Johnny on the spot" with the shutter release. A dSLR will take a picture almost instantaneously, but the typical P&amp;S will have a shutter lag of a second or more.

These are just two of the many reasons that some people optto spend the extra money for a dSLR.

A few years ago, I bought a P&amp;S to take some photos of my wife as she competes in equestrian sports. These two reasons are the why I now own a dSLR.